Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia v Hospira Australia Pty Ltd T/A Pfizer Melbourne

[2023] FWC 1150

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia

Hospira Australia Pty Ltd T/A Pfizer Melbourne

(B2023/451)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY

MELBOURNE, 16 MAY 2023

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Hospira Australia Pty Ltd Trading As Pfizer Melbourne

This is an application by the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia (Applicant) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Hospira Australia Pty Ltd T/A Pfizer Melbourne (Respondent).

On 16 May 2023, my Associate was advised that the Respondent did not object to the application.

In the circumstances, I have decided to determine the matter on the papers without holding a hearing.

On the basis of the material before me, including the declaration of Ms Chelsea Hill of the Applicant setting out the steps taken by it in bargaining with the Respondent and that it has been, and is, genuinely trying to reach agreement with the Respondent, I am satisfied that there is a notification time in relation to the proposed agreement and that the requirements in s.443(1) of the Act have been met.

An order has been separately issued in PR761931.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the Fair Work Commission involved the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia and Hospira Australia Pty Ltd, trading as Pfizer Melbourne. The Union applied for an order to hold a protected action ballot among certain employees of the company, pursuant to section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The dispute centred on the Union's assertion that it had been genuinely attempting to reach an agreement with the company regarding a proposed agreement, and that the requisite notification period had elapsed. The company did not oppose the application, leading to the Commission's decision to proceed without a hearing. The Union submitted a declaration by Ms Chelsea Hill, which detailed the bargaining process and the Union's efforts to reach an agreement.

The key legal issue before the Commission was whether the Union had fulfilled the conditions for a protected action ballot as outlined in section 443(1) of the Act. This required the Union to demonstrate that it had been genuinely trying to reach an agreement with the company and that the necessary notification period had passed. The Commission's decision hinged on the credibility of the Union's declaration and the evidence of its bargaining efforts. The Commission found that the Union had met the requirements for a ballot, and accordingly, the application was successful.

The Fair Work Commission concluded that the Union had satisfied the statutory requirements for a protected action ballot. Based on the declaration and other materials before the Commission, it was satisfied that the Union had genuinely attempted to reach an agreement with the company and that the notification period had elapsed. Consequently, the Deputy President issued an order permitting the Union to hold the ballot. This decision underscores the importance of the Union's declaration and the evidence of its bargaining efforts in meeting the legal criteria for a ballot under the Act.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established